Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 September

< 2013 August	Move review archives	2013 October >

2013 September[edit]

Carpi FC 1909 – Decision endorsed. Closer concluded correctly that there was no consensus. – Favonian (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The page was renamed from Carpi F.C. 1909 to Carpi FC 1909 with the motivation "Official team logo has no periods." The official homepage of the teams writes the name with dots everywere[1] and all the other articles about Italian football clubs have dots.CapPixel (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close the RM was closed as non consensus. And there truly was no consensus. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but it has no sense and it's based only on an unofficial page: Soccerway. CapPixel (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Start another move request then. Move Review is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. See Talk:Carpi FC 1909. CapPixel (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. I must say I'm disappointed CapPixel didn't bring this up with me before initiating this move review. This isn't an appropriate case for a move review; there was certainly no consensus for a move. Three supported, but they didn't establish that the proposed title was more common, or otherwise preferable according to policy beyond it being ostensibly consistent with other Italian team soccer articles. As such the supporters couldn't outweigh the three opposes, whose position was supported by the lack of overall consensus on soccer club articles as well as the only English-language source provided.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually added the official club homepage as a proof, but that was totally ignored in favour of soccerway. If the consensus wasn't reached, why was the request closed so fast? CapPixel (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFICIALNAMES matter less than third-party secondary sources, and of course English sources are needed to establish common names in English. The request wasn't closed "fast"; it had been open for over 3 weeks and relisted once before, and hadn't gotten a new comment in a couple of days. There wasn't a consensus for a move at that point, so closing it as such is perfectly reasonable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case, since the club is commonly called simply Carpi. All the english football clubs articles also have dots and soccerway has the name without. We should rename all the articles without dots, then... CapPixel (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Upstairs–Downstairs (album) – Relisted by the closer. – Cúchullain ^t/c 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

(1) Non-admin close of difficult area related to current confusion as to whether WP:PDAB applies to mentions in other articles - particularly thorny given series of recent disagreement on whether a song covered in a collection of songs should be disambiguated against by bandname Foo in the (Foo song) or whether songs should only be disambiguated against if song is forked out of a collection of songs into a standalone song article. (2) Closes with confusion about what to do with redirect "Consensus did not seem clear at all about leaving the redirect" inviting further discussion in close, meaning that discussion isn't over and a relist would have been better. (3) pinging a user in the close "(In ictu oculi did not mention it)" rather than pinging before a close. (4) no consensus visible with RM proposer accepting alternative RM proposal so inappropriate for a non-admin close. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Yes, this really isn't much of a consensus. The nomination seems to hinge on a MOS misreading. Obviously I'm biased towards my own argument, but I gave examples of stable titles with slashes, and this was not addressed. --BDD (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Active non-admin RM regulars should not be making closes in contentious cases, to do so undermines confidence in the system. In particular, non-admins, like here, tend to skate over the fuzzy supervote line, and they should take extra care to steer clear of it. This should not have been closed as consensus found to move without participants responding directly to BDD's !vote. Advise to RedSlash to revert his close, !vote as an ordinary participant, and make it easier for the next passing closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relist this discussion could use more input. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close and relist: Aside from whether there was a consensus or not (and I personally do not see a consensus in that discussion), I agree with BDD that there seems to be a misreading of guidelines here about slashes in article names. As far as I know, slashes that are actually in the titles of topics are acceptable, and I have seen several cases of such usage on Wikipedia. Here is a quote from WP:SUB: "Some topics have a slash in the name, and should be named accordingly—e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy or OS/2." —BarrelProof (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the nominator of the move request (my IP has rotated); I am obviously biased in favour of the result (ie. endorsing it), but relisting is also fine by me. I made two different points on this nomination. (1) the SLASH title, and (2) ambiguity with other uses. The reopening of the request should indicate which points are being used for reopening. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only three people commented on the original request (including the nominator), and the remarks were relatively brief. That doesn't seem sufficient to declare some aspects closed in further discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted. Many different editors that I have respect for (In ictu oculi, BDD, SmokeyJoe, Hot Stop, BarrelProof) have all said that I should have relisted, and that's more than enough. I was trying to close a low-importance move and get the admins' workload down some--but clearly, relisting would've been much better, admin or not. (I'm not going to be !voting, by the way--I really don't have any opinion on it.) Red Slash 01:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Red Slash. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Southeast – Decision endorsed. Consensus is that the closer found a workable solution to a messy problem. – Favonian (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There was a proposed move to move Southeast, Northeast, Northwest and Southwest to Southeast (disambiguation), Northeast (disambiguation), Northwest (disambiguation) and Southwest (disambiguation). There was no mention by the proposer of what the base names (e.g., Northeast) would redirect to in the event of the move passing (he mentioned something about "the articles on the directions should all be moved to the base name", despite the fact that there are no such articles); therefore, I at least was unable to make a !vote. It was a mess, rather atypical of User:Bkonrad, whom I respect immensely, and unfortunately User:BD2412, the closing admin, read that move request and determined that when a user types in Northwest (for instance), they should be taken to boxing the compass, which is problematic for three reasons. First, that's a poor choice of landing--boxing the compass doesn't say anything about the direction Northwest in particular (which makes sense, because we're not a dictionary and I doubt anyone could write and source an article about a direction--in any case, that article doesn't exist at boxing the compass). Second, there is no consensus anywhere at that move request for primary topic being boxing the compass, because primary topic wasn't even discussed, because nobody proposed a primary topic and the closer just picked a location for those links to redirect to. Third, our primary topic criteria would reject this decision if only the question had ever been raised. Just check the pageviews. boxing the compass has 26k views over past 90 days whereas Southwest Airlines, which is just one example for just one direction, has 158k!. In summary, this move close did not correctly identify a consensus to move the pages to disambiguation pages and to redirect the base names to boxing the compass. I respect and appreciate the nominator and the closing administrator; I do however believe this was an error. (The closing admin has been notified.) Red Slash 00:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that there really is no good, consistent outcome. It seems logical to have Southeast, Northeast, Northwest and Southwest all treated the same - that is, to have all of them be disambiguation pages, or all of them be articles, or all point to an article that discusses each of them. However, it also seems (based on prior treatment) that the primary topic of at least some of these is the direction itself, but that not enough information has been gathered on any of them to support a distinct article just on that direction. The one place where it seems that all of these directions are best addressed is Boxing the compass#Compass point names, where I have also added a hatnote to the section indicating the separate disambiguation pages for each of these, as well as a link to Southwest Airlines. Incidentally, I am not convinced that the number of people looking at the Southwest Airlines page indicates that this is the primary meaning of Southwest, any more than the number of people looking at Sears Tower would indicate that this was the primary meaning of Sears. However, User:Red Slash is correct that there was no consensus specifically to move the pages to disambiguation pages and to redirect the base names to boxing the compass. What I did find was that was a consensus for all of these titles to receive the same treatment. User:Necrothesp and User:168.12.253.66 both felt that the directions were the clear primary topics; User:Ezhiki preferred "to either have all these articles be about the directions, or to have them be disambigs"; and User:Bkonrad was "inclined to support having the disambiguation pages for all at the base names". Thus, there were three editors who either felt that the directions were the primary topics, or were at least okay with that so long as their treatment was uniform, and a fourth editor who preferred having them as disambiguation pages, but also expressed a desire for uniform treatment, and that is what I implemented. I tend to agree that uniformity of treatment is more encyclopedic, and I feel that I did the best I could with what I had to work with. bd2412 T 00:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need to treat them all the same? We don't treat Alabama, Florida and Georgia the same; we don't treat London, Hong Kong and New York the same; we don't even treat Chicken, Pheasant and Turkey the same... Sometimes we have a clear primary topic, and sometimes we don't. Again, the problem is not even with you so much as it is that this malformed move request probably could never have ended in a consensus since it failed to say what the proposer was actually proposing. (And because the proposer never said what he planned to do with the base names, the discussion about primary topic - like for Southwest Airlines v. other topics - never got to take place.) Red Slash 00:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:Article Titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. All is well. Compass directions should take the reader to content on compass directions. Someone typing "southwest" should be taken to the compass directions, not to the airline, because this is an encyclopedia, not an internet search engine optimized for the lowest skilled user. The hatnotes at the target section seem quite sufficient. If Red Slash is saying the format of the discussion was unclear, I agree. I do not agree that the close made the encyclopedia worse. The use of terms such as "base name" and "primary topic", RM-specialty terms opaque to the unencultured, pushes me to reject the nomination per NOTBUREAUCRACY, and congratulate the closer on distilling a sensible outcome. If the current situation is unclear, I urge Red Slash to propose a change, starting from this point, with better clarity than both the RM and this MR nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it did make the encyclopedia a little bit worse, because people who type in Southwest are in general not looking for boxing the compass. Nobody who commented at the requested move made the assertion that they are, and page view statistics also strongly suggest that they are not looking for that. Is that clear enough for you, SmokeyJoe? Red Slash 03:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the close created order from disorder. I think that the consistency applied is good. Maybe I overvalue consistency. I think you overvalue page view statistics, US residents having considerably easier access and ability to click and load quickly, are overrepresented. Personally, I think optimising the encyclopedia navigation to serve company brand names is something to be avoided. Maybe there is merit in all directions being redirected (or becoming) the disambiguation pages. In any case, I think the way to move forward is to make a new proposal from the state of order than to overturn this decision and to go back to disorder. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I think disambiguation pages at all four would have been a better consistency, I'm not going to recommend overturning this move. If anything, it should be clarified that the move was not based on a strong consensus (with zero objective evidence of any sort) and as a result this move outcome should not prejudice future move discussions. In effect it was cleaning up a mess. older ≠ wiser 11:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - per WP:AT "Consistency" - would be inconsistent to have different compass points treated inconsistently. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support compass directions redirecting to points on the compass, and also support consistency among the compass directions. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 09:47, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.